Last week Microsoft issued its first patch for Windows
Server 2003. Simon Moores sees it as a timely lesson for companies
to remain vigilant about security.
There was an almost uncanny coincidence in the timing of
Microsoft’s first patch announcement for Windows Server
2003.
We all knew that it had to come sometime and it managed to
coincide with Gartner’s announcement that "2003 will be the first
year in history in which most industries will spend 5% of their IT
budgets on security”.
Apparently, enterprise security spending will have grown at a
compound annual rate of 28% between 2001 and the end of 2003, while
cash-strapped IT budgets overall will have grown only 6% in the
same period. Security is no longer a hidden cost of business; it is
rapidly becoming the principal cost of doing business in the 21st
century, after staffing and other IT costs, which between them chew
up most of business income.
Microsoft’s little piece of bad news held its own small silver
lining because it illustrated how the company’s Trustworthy
Computing Initiative is starting to pay off.
"Secure by design, secure by default and secure by deployment"
is Microsoft’s slogan and, while Windows Server 2003 has, according
to Microsoft vice president Craig Fiebig, a “60% smaller attack
surface”, there is still that 40% gap remaining, which will be
giving us regular patches for some time to come.
In this case, Microsoft was quick to act in identifying two
rather nasty vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer, which would have
given real cause for concern in Windows Server 2003’s predecessors.
However - and because the product is locked down by default, the
vulnerabilities, which might, conceivably, allow an attacker to
execute malicious code on a user's system, were moderate rather
than critical.
Stuart Okin, Microsoft’s chief security officer in the
UK, commented that “Windows 2003 by default is not susceptible to
the vulnerability in Internet Explorer", and Jose Lopez, an analyst
with Frost & Sullivan, remarked that the arrival of a first
patch for Windows Server 2003 had not come as a great surprise and
that Microsoft is clearly handling the vulnerability issue better
than it had in the past. He added, “The company needs time to prove
itself,” and that the evidence is encouraging.
So while Microsoft is busy patching with style, its customers
still need to make sure that the fixes are applied rather than
settle back into complacency over Windows Server 2003’s Robocop
image.
More importantly perhaps, if, like many companies, you are still
on Windows NT or Windows 2000, then you have to give some serious
thought to upgrading, and this, of course, is where Gartner’s costs
of security start to kick in.
Do you stick with an older platform that offers the chance of
critical risk, or move to one where the risks are classified as
moderate? This is where the juggling of budgets arrives. In theory,
security should be a non-negotiable business argument, but in
practice it is, invariably, a poor relation.
What do you think?
Is your security expenditure becoming too great a drain on your
budget?
Tell us in an e-mail
>> ComputerWeekly.com reserves the right to edit and publish
answers on the website. Please state if your answer is not for
publication.
Setting the world to rights with the collected thoughts and
opinions of leading industry analystDr Simon
Mooresof Zentelligence.
Acting globally, Zentelligence (Research) advises
governments, suppliers, business and the media on the evolution,
application and delivery of leading-edge technologies and
specialises in the areas of eGovernment and information
security.
For further information on Zentelligence and its research,
presentation and analyst services visitwww.zentelligence.com